The War of 1812: Not Much For Americans To Celebrate

Jay Newton-Small wonders why there isn’t more interest in commemorating the War of 1812:

But even though the U.S. won it [bold mine-DL], the War of 1812 seems to be the buck-toothed stepsister of American military victories.

This is probably because the U.S. didn’t really win the war and the war wasn’t worth fighting in the first place. The U.S. gained none of the changes in British policy it set out to win, it failed to achieve its military objectives, and the war resulted in thousands of unnecessary deaths and needless damage to the country’s commerce. The section of the country for which the war was supposedly being waged was largely opposed to the conflict, and there was even a movement that considered separating New England from the U.S. because of the degree of opposition to the war. The war was not only unnecessary, but it was also a losing fight that the U.S. chose to start by declaring war first. The only real victory that the U.S. had in the entire war came after the formal peace had already been negotiated. The U.S. went to war against Britain at a time when the latter was still embroiled in its conflict with Napoleon.

The U.S. “won” only in the sense that it got itself into a war with a far more powerful Britain that was distracted by a much larger conflict, and so survived in much better shape than it otherwise would have. In that respect, the U.S. had the dubious distinction of indirectly assisting one of the more aggressive and destructive rulers of the 19th century when his power was already going into decline. It was the “second war of independence” only in that the U.S. proved that it could survive launching a foolish war against a superior adversary without forfeiting its existence. The War of 1812 should of course be studied and commemorated, but there is very little in it that Americans have to celebrate.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 44 comments

44 Responses to The War of 1812: Not Much For Americans To Celebrate

The war was unpopular in New England because it affected naval trade but American declaration of war was justified based on British impressment policy. England didn’t recognize naturalized American citizens who renounced British citizenship so they had a policy of searching American merchant marine ships (even in U.S. territorial waters) and “impressing” them into the Royal Navy against their will.

American’s at the time weren’t naive of their strength vis-a-vis the British but an independent nation cannot allow such a blatant violation of American laws and territorial integrity.

The US, of course, did not “win” the War of 1812. And the war should probably never have been fought, not so much for the good it did Napoleon, which was minimal, and, in any event, it is not clear to me that British, as opposed to French, hegemony, was so wonderful, but because there was very little chance of actually defeating the British, or forcing it to cede territory or change its naval policies. The war was futile, when viewed in those terms.

However, I think the War of 1812 was a little more important than the argument here would have it, and that there are a few things worth celebrating about it. The war cemented American independence, and the Federal nation. It showed that to take on America, on its home ground, a very, very large army, and a great commitment to prolonged and bloody war, was going to be needed. Naval superiority and expeditionary forces, free to land anywhere they wanted on any of the coasts, could not defeat the USA.

The end of the war, with the successful defense of Baltimore, and Jackson’s victory in the Battle of New Orleans, and the Treaty, in which the US lost nothing, even though the Northern front with Canada was an abysmal failure, led to a burst of patriotism in the USA. The immediate and widespread popularity of “The Star Spangled Banner” was indicative of that patriotic resurgence. The “little US” view, represented by the New England antiwar die hard Federalists, was utterly repudiated. From then on, there would be no question that the US would be oriented west and south west, and not east towards Britain or north towards British Canada. Never again (or at least until quite recently) would serious Separatist talk be heard in New England, or in the North generally. The war showed that the USA, and its national government, were here to stay, and that its continental aspirations (or pretentions, if you prefer) were not going to be easily satisfied or denied.

Not a second Revolution, no. More like the American theater of the Seven Years War, but without the French and with the Americans forming their own faction. The Northwest had been at war continuously for 30 years either against the British, their Indian allies, or both.

I won’t be so jingoistic as to assert that there was an American triumph to celebrate, but the fight did gain a modicum of respect for the upcoming 49th parallel and Oregon country disputes, and peace brought the permanent evacuation from the American Northwest of redcoats.

That wouldn’t interest trans-Atlantic looking coastal Yankees or southern planters, but it was still important for a fair number of Americans in the future flyover states. Maybe that’s why nobody notices now?

“…there were intangible results that went far beyond what could be written into a treaty…American gained new respect abroad. For 20 years she had been regarded as a sort of semi-nation–almost a freak–by the great powers of Europe. Considered too weak to stand on her own, she had seen her rights ignored by both sides…

“Now that was all over. America had fought and this fact alone gave her prestige. There had been some fiascos, but there were skillful performances too, and these were occurring with ever-increasing frequency. ‘The war has raised our reputation in Europe,’ James Bayard wrote…’and it excites astonishment that we should have been able for one campaign to have fought Great Britain single handed…I think it will be a long time before we are disturbed again by any of the powers of Europe.’

“…new confidence at home. Americans themselves…wondered whether their flimsy federation could survive a real crises. Many felt with Gouverneur Morris that ‘it was as vain to expect the permanency of democracy as to construct a palace on the surface of the sea.’ Now they knew it could be done….

“…a new freedom from Europe…Americans turned to developing their own vast resources…and forgot about Europe completely…

“…the most important result of all was a new feeling of national pride. ‘Who would not be an American?’ rhapsodized Nile’s Register…’Long live the republic! All hail! Last asylum of oppressed humanity!’ Such ecstasy would have seen odd…before the war…What was needed was a common experience…

“…French Minister Louis Serurier…concluded: ‘Finally, the war has given the Americans what they so essentially lacked, a national character founded on a glory common to all.’

“This glory had many ingredients…Jackson’s victory at New Orleans…Perry’s triumph on Lake Erie…But none of them did as much…as that searing experience of losing Washington–the people’s own capital–followed by the thrill of national redemption when the same enemy force was repulsed at Baltimore…

“…a whole new sense of national identity shone forth…in…’the dawn’s early light.'”

The general wisdom of the war can be argued but one result of the war cannot. Before the war, Britain openly colluded with the Indians of the Old North West to deny us Westward expansion into the Ohio Valley and the upper great lakes region. By the end of the war the British had abandoned their indian allies to their fate. Burning Washington was a small price to pay for Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, etc.

The war also left the US in control of the Mississippi. The British had hoped to bottle up American commerce and thereby expansion by holding New Orleans. We clearly won there. It is important to remember that the treaty was not ratified by either party at the time of the Battle. So that battle was not just a mistake. That battle proved the mettle of American military resolve, thus ending any talk of invasion and conquest.

The Crown hoped to either fracture or contain the US. That was no longer in the cards by the end of the war. The US emerged stronger from the war while the British failed to gain any US soil. British policy after the war was to accommodate the US and this worked to the advantage of both parties. That sounds like at least a qualified victory to me.

To add to what Meehan said, Jackson’s victory in the concurrent Creek War opened up the Old Southwest to European settlers (and their slaves) and (outside the Seminoles in Florida) effectively eliminated Native resistance and paved the way for Removal. Native Americans, especially at the time of Tecumseh’s Confederation, remained a powerful challenge to white advance into the West; afterward, no.

No. It is not that ‘ . . . we really didn’t win it.’ We didn’t win it — at all.
e
And had the British not been preoccupied elsewhere and actually taken the revolt seriously we wouldn’t have won the first endeavour either.

For anyone with a taste for alternate history, Eric Flint has written a couple of novels that jump off from a subtley changed War of 1812.

“The Rivers of War” (or “1812: The Rivers of War” in paperback) – Sam Houston suffers a minor wound instead of a life-threatening one at the Battle of the Horseshoe so he is in Washington, D.C. when the British arrive to burn down the city, and serves alongside a freedmen’s battalion led by an ex-Sergeant of Napoleon’s under Andrew Jackson at a very different Battle of New Orleans.

“1824: The Arkansas War” – After Houston has brokered a deal whereby the Southern Indian tribes voluntarily migrate across the Mississippi and set up a confederated republic recognized by the U.S. government, freedmen exclusion laws, frontier adventurers and Henry Clay combine to spark a war between the New World’s two mainland republics. And John Quincy Adams takes up whiskey!

These are straight alternate histories with no science fiction elements, unlike Flint’s “1632” series and the “Belisarius” series plotted by David Drake and scripted by Flint, and are probably two of my favorite novels, period.

The war did end British support of the Indians, and got them to evacuate the forts that they were supposed to have evacuated as part of the Jay Treaty.

The Brits got several nasty surprises at sea (and on the Great Lakes). Given their unbroken string of naval success against everyone else, this was a shock that had more of an impact at that time than it might appear to have now.

The origins of the war were misbegotten (the British parliament had revoked the orders in council that permitted the impressment of seamen, as Congress was voting for war), and the Canadians made it pretty clear that they did not want become part of the United States.

That said the end result was generally positive for the US, and the US and Britain were able to move on from it and deal with each other on a more equal basis and as partners in a mutually beneficial relationship (see Monroe Doctrine, less than a decade after the end of the war).

In my Canadian schooling, some stress was laid on the idea that the War of 1812 helped build up Canadian nationalism and that, had the war not occurred, the many American immigrants to Upper and Lower Canada might have supported joining the U.S. Perhaps the Rebellions of 1837 might have turned out differently? I don’t know if this is really true, but if it is, then the War of 1812 might have cost the U.S. direct control of the northern half of the continent.

At any rate, it’s interesting how every country’s mythology manages extract some intangible benefit from a war, even most useless and pointless ones.

“A harbinger of ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’ where American government engages in permanent foreign wars for expanding control both inside and outside to all humanity?”

Meh. Is every war which shows that a country had territorial ambitions, even extensive ones, a harbinger of FSD? The US government was hardly seeking total internal and external domination in 1812. Its very survival and minimal respect were more at issue in the war than anything else.

And, as has been mentioned, the British were not exactly the innocent victims either. They were, essentially, kidnapping and enslaving our sailors. And they also were interfering with neutral shipping rights (both things you can bet that they would not tolerate for an instant if the shoe was on the other foot). In addition, they were maintaining their forts on territory that they already ceded twice by treaty (the Treaty of Paris and Jay’s Treaty) to the USA, and arming Native Americans, and bribing and inciting them to make war on the USA.

Both Presidents Jefferson and Madison loathed war. For the very reasons you mention (war tends to strengthen the central government and the executive), and because they felt that war was the hallmark of the European imperial monarchies that the new Republic was not supposed to resemble. And both Presidents tried to use diplomacy, and even self harming unilateral “embargoes” on the USA’s own export trade, in efforts to stay out of war. But those efforts were treated with contempt by the British.

Let’s not, in our justified disgust with current US foreign policy, read it back willy nilly into every past occurrence, including events from two centuries ago. The US has never been a shrinking violet, but it was Napoleon and the British who sought, and fought over, worldwide domination in 1812, not the fledgling USA. Seeking additional territory in Canada, which was one of the US war aims, is not quite the same thing.

Nor all that much for the British to be proud of, just a few barren victories and snide remarks.
And how many snide remarks about a vacillating President [ justified or not ] does it take to buy a single ration of Grog?

The War of 1812 directly enabled American nationalism and its ideology of rapid expansion, and the subsequent shameful treatment of Native Americans. How does the impressment of former British subjects justify risking life and limb and invasion by a professional army, while today it’s somehow wrong to give a good healthy smack to Arabs who are proclaiming vile hatred and even attack us directly? If the War of 1812 was a good idea, so was every other war we have engaged in. I don’t see how one can claim to oppose American imperialism while seeing the upside of a conflict that jumpstarted the American empire.

The shameful treatment of Native Americans preceded the War of 1812. Indeed, it long preceded the American Revolution and the establishment of the USA itself.

And, yeah, the impressment of American citizens by a foreign power was a direct smack in the face to American sovereignty. Also, many of the impressed seamen were NOT former British subject at all, but only were claimed to be such by the British, who were desperate to man their Navy and didn’t really care who they shanghaied into doing so, and certainly were not overly troubled by including Americans who had never been British subjects at all in their drag nets.

Yes, invasion was risked. But that does nothing to minimize the grievances about the seamen, and the other grievances relating to the rights of neutral shipping, which the British completely disregarded. Standing up for one’s rights carries dangers. So what?

And what any of this has to do with today’s “Arabs” generally is beyond me. But it does seem to me that we do pretty well in our own “vile hatred” of them, and have made rather a habit of bombing and invading their countries (far more than vice versa), and backing their foe Israel to the hilt.

I also don’t see how the War of 1812 “jumpstarted the American empire.” The USA had just the same amount of territory after the war as it did before it. Nor is “American nationalism,” per se, a bad thing. Nationalism is not an unmitigated evil, like fascism or racism. Rather, nationalism, within reason, is simply a reflection of the de jure division of the planet into nation-states.

Then too, I don’t think anyone here is saying that the War of 1812 was a good idea, or an unmitigated success. Rather the argument goes that there is more for Americans to celebrate about it than the main article states.

The War of 1812 did not merely end with a battle fought after the peace treaty had been signed, it began with a declaration of war adopted after the principal American complaint against the British — the orders in council — had been repealed. It is also, so far as I know, the only war we have ever fought without infringing civil liberties.

Well, there is one thing to celebrate. The aggressors lost. The Americans lost the war at the beginning when we were the aggressors, and when the British decided to become the aggressors and use the war to regain American territory, the tide turned and they started losing.

“So we didn’t “win” the war but sometimes just facing down stronger enemies can do wonders for national pride and cohesion.”

Just so you know. I don’t think the colonists needed a reason to be more cohesive and I am not a fan of the revolutionary war anymore the wisdom of the 1812 endeavour. Not because I am a pacifist. There were unnecessary in my view.

And I can think of nothing so abhorantly evil as engaging in a war over taxes, representation, providing logding for soldiers doing the heavy lifting of regional security and in the name of liberty while at the same time maintaining slaves. And part of the indictment against Great Britain are two very strange calls: 1. instituting slavery and 2. encouraging slaves to remain loyal to the King and fight against the colonists

If not for the summersaults engaged in to this very day to blame blacks for the consequences of being black (without excusing any of the self inflicted issues) I would have looked at those first drafts of the declaration as fiction.

The presence on the continent was cause enough to force unity but your comments sounds strangely familiar about other causes for unity, before the fact.

Unlike many others. I do not oppose nationalism. I even think the US is exceptional — very much so. I think we have a role in international leadership. But I want to have an adult’s view of who we are and what we are capable of doing and why —- smacking our neighbors just so you and I can call ourselves better pals is not one of them.

And when I say pals, I mean in a non romantic fashion. Though the thought of hopping into a fighting hole with a fit woman is a tempting idea. Ah, the distractions of battle. Sheeesh.

@ Cliff – – Yes, you make the same point I did, that the war might not have taken place if the vote in the US Congress had been delayed briefly. The assassination of Spencer Perceval, the British PM, cleared the way for a new PM willing to make the deal with the US.

Kentucky became a state in 1798, and Ohio in 1803– British skullduggery with Native Americans did not prevent the settlement of those states (which had been partly cleared of their earlier inhabitants by the Iroquois in the 1700s). To be sure the settlement of Michigan was delayed, but this was more to the almost impassable Great Black Spot in NW Ohio (now fertile farm land from Sandusky west to the Indiana border after the swamp was finally drained by the mid 1800s): it could take days to reach Toledo overland and there were almost no roads into Michigan.
It’s also not true that the young United States was ill-regarded in Europe. Certainly the more liberal sorts in Europe looked to the US as an inspiration and a hope.

The point is that the British were holding onto forts in US territory. And arming and inciting the Native Americans. Nobody questions that the settlement of what was then the western US was not proceeding anyway, just that the British were impeding it.

And, yes, it is true that the more liberal sorts in Europe looked to the USA as an inspiration and a hope. But the more liberal sorts were pretty much on the wrong end of the soon to be concluded Napoleonic wars. Reaction was in the drivers’ seat in the aftermath of the French Revolution, in France itself and in its adversaries as well. The USA was seen as something of a joke not by European liberals, but by the Crowned Heads and their courts, and most particularly so in Great Britain…..Admiral Cochrane: “…they [the Americans] are a whining, canting race, much [like] the Spaniel, and require the same treatment–to be drubbed into good manners..” I believe there was also talk of capturing President Madison and bringing him back to Britain “as a curiosity.”

Mr. Larson inexcusably neglects what caused the war of 1812 besides impressment, the unceasing British support of Indian resistance in the Trans-Appalachian West particularly Tecumseh and the Red Sticks. He also neglects the catastrophic defeat of both groups. Tecumseh is killed at the battle of the Thames and Jackson crushes the Redsticks at Horseshoe Bend. The destruction of Native American resistance in the Trans-Appalachian West was the decisive result of the War of 1812.

A few good things came out of it: we managed to get some respect from GB. War results eventually led to Rush Bagot treaty, demilitarizing northern border. Battle of New Orleans ensured our claim to Louisiana Purchase couldn’t be challenged.

Amusingly, the town of Bladensburg puts on a show to celebrate what was the worst American defeat on national soil, a debacle worse in many ways than Peal Harbor. A British army of about 3000 soundly defeated a militia force twice its size at Bladensburg in August of 1814. The men of Maryland, DC and Virginia ran away and allowed the White House and Capitol to be burned.

Simply put the War of 1812 ended because Great Britain believed that the cost-benefit analysis showed a clear advantage in pulling out rather than staying. They maintained a relationship with southern states from that time until the present. The economic relationships are founded in belief of Elizabethans that limited government, weak government was the best government.

1)Defeating the invading American army in 1812 is an exaggerated achievement owing to the weakness and incompetence of this fledgling nations military: The US army was largely corrupt, granting commissions to undeserving officers through bribery and nepotism. Many of its officer corp were aged,out of shape and far beyond their usefulness. The militia who were too heavily relied upon were poorly supplied , trained (as were many US regulars) and did not had either the inclination or obligation to operate beyond their home state borders. The US had to march through miles and miles of wilderness in the summer heat wearing thick woolen uniforms with limited supplies and rations. Worst of all, the US completely misunderstood Canada’s hatred and resolve against protestant America who threatened to deny Canadians of their right to practice Catholicism.

2) Canada played no role whatsoever in the burning of Washington. This was carried out by British regulars. Not a single Canadian boot set foot on American soil during the war, at least not in D.C.